Search results

Rick Jamison, as Project Manager for the highly profitable Mega-Yacht division of Thorsby-Wando Marine Refit, Inc., has been assigned the task of revamping the supplier evaluation and selection tool used by the company in view of the evolution of the business from a small boat storage and repair facility into a full-service large boat and mega-yacht repair and refit facility. Rick gleans ideas from a colleague at another facility in preparation for re-crafting the current supplier evaluation tool. Rick becomes acquainted with how the Delphi method could be used to achieve consensus among members of the buying center to arrive at key factors and their proportionate weights for use in the supplier evaluation tool.

The case is based upon interviews with the company that is represented by Thorsby-Wando Marine Refit, Inc.

This case is targeted primarily at undergraduate students in purchasing, materials management and supply chain management courses. The case works best when it is employed in connection with a discussion of the major methods for evaluating vendors.

After studying the case, the students will be able to: 1. understand the business and existing HR practices at Precision Engineering; 2. evaluate the factors affecting business that may require the company to formalise its HR practices; 3. create recruitment and selection-related solutions for HR 2.0 using appropriate models and theory to aid the company meet its business goals; 4. create training needs identification and evaluation practices for HR 2.0 using appropriate models and theory to aid the company meet its business goals; and 5. create performance planning and review-related solutions for HR 2.0 using appropriate models and theory to aid the company meet its business goals. The case helps students objectively assess HR practices related to three core verticals – recruitment and selection; training; and performance management systems. It also enables them to reassess these practices with the help of specific metrics and models.

Precision Engineering was a manufacturer of machined metal components in the Indian automotive components industry. It had been a family-run business since its inception in 1995. Precision was awarded the prestigious Automotive Component Manufacturers of India award in 2020 for excellence in HR. Ms Sakshi Kapoor, General Manager of Innovation, was ecstatic at the receipt of this award. She, however, was thoughtful about the informal human resource (HR) practices at the company. The top management had announced an aggressive growth plan and advised Ms Kapoor to leverage HR practices to facilitate these plans. Recruitment and selection, employee training and performance management systems needed to be formalised on a priority basis to strategically aid the future business agenda at Precision. Ms Kapoor faced the challenge of preparing the roadmap of HR 2.0 while preserving the employee-centric beliefs at Precision. The case initiates a discussion to achieve this goal by adopting suitable HR metrics and models.

It should be taught in the core course on Human Resource Management for first-year Masters in Business Administration (MBA) students. Alternatively, it could be used in elective courses such as Strategic Human Resource Management, Training and Development and Performance Management Systems for second-year MBA students.

Teaching notes are available for educators only.

CSS 6: Human Resource Management.

Republic Electric is faced with the need to engage in a systematic process of evaluating vendors for its just-in-time manufacturing. The case gives students the opportunity to think through the process for vendor selection in the context of real-world constraints for a specific organization, to become acquainted with the Delphi technique for developing consensus, to gain hands-on experience with linear averaging, to engage in calculations of value indexes, and to recognize the marketing implications of effectively evaluating vendors. A key takeaway for students is the fact that vendor selection decisions are multifaceted and will vary among organizations depending on each organization’s particular strategic needs, operational constraints, and human judgment.

The case is based upon a consulting assignment with the company that is represented by Republic Electric. The experience was gained first-hand by one of the authors.

This case is targeted at undergraduate students in marketing, materials management, supply chain management, and purchasing, but can work well in a variety of business courses in which supply chains or the development of evaluation tools is studied, to include graduate classes.

The concept of vendor assessment is well developed in the literature and represents a pragmatic, but often neglected, step in the practice of choosing suppliers.

The case deals with a chain of hospitals, that has grown vary fast in last few years as a result of various acquisitions and new developments. The hospital chain is lagging behind in use of technology. The IT department is inward looking and the focus is more on provide support services rather than strategic orientation. A new CIO takes charge of the IT department and decides to transform IT from playing a support to strategic role. He identifies cloud computing as a tool to take the leap. The case provides an opportunity to discuss the type of service and deployment models of benefits of cloud technology. A rough data to do financial evaluation of cloud technology is presented. Evaluation parameters that may be used to decide on cloud versus in-house technology are also discussed.

Captain Joseph Brunetti was given the assignment to provide his superior officer an analysis of what to expect when the US Army implemented its new process to evaluate the performance of noncommissioned officers (NCOs), called sergeants. Brunetti had about 104 sergeants in his unit. The US Army created a new process in 2015 to evaluate sergeants to overcome the deficiencies in the Army’s old process, now 28 years old. Under the old process, almost every sergeant was rated at the highest levels, making it nearly impossible for the US Army to know whom to promote to higher ranks. Under the old process, very little counseling took place, so NCOs were not given guidance on how to develop themselves. Raters and senior raters (SRs) were not held accountable for their work in performance management, either. Under the new process, which included a forced distribution form of ranking, SRs had to offer counselings as well as options for future assignments. Brunetti, who had only limited experience in rating sergeants anyway, had to prepare for his boss what was called an “operations report” outlining what the organization could expect with the changeover to the new process and what may need attention as the process would continue in subsequent years.

This case has been developed from actual experiences and the assignment given to Brunetti also happened as described in the case. Since many of the individuals in the case are still employed by the US Army, the names of the individuals and the company units in this case have been disguised. Even so, the events of the protagonist’s tours of duty prior to the assignment described in this case did occur, but some of the locations within the USA have been changed. The other persons quoted from public documents or otherwise referenced in the articles are the actual persons so identified. The old NCOERs in Exhibit 3 are as these were written but the personally identifiable data about the individuals have been blackened out.

This case is suitable for both undergraduate and graduate courses in human resource management and especially on the topical material on performance management and performance appraisal. The case can also be used in both undergraduate and graduate courses in general management, for modules on human resource management. The Relevant Theory section below is centered on human resource management.

This relevant theory which undergirds this case centers on the broad concept of performance management and on performance appraisal instruments. The case underscores the important concept that performance management has to be more than “completing the appraisal form.”

United Learning is a family-owned leader in the K-12 supplementary teaching material market. In January 2001, United Learning realized that sales for one of its flagship products, a drug and prevention program, were rapidly deteriorating because the program was not mentioned on a recently released U.S. Department of Education list of recommended products. United Learning must decide on which action to take: regain sales or focus on its other educational products--which are also threatened by changes in the regulatory environment.

The case is a continuation of the series of articles, written in the form of a case, that focus upon various issues relating to case research, writing and teaching with cases. In this article Professor Moore and the other fictitious characters, confront the difficulties that he had experienced grading student case analyses. In discussing the situation with his department chair Gloria Gorham he learns much about the origins of grading and the various methods of evaluating student work. At a later date other colleagues, Chris Anderson and Dave Berger, are brought into the discussion expressing their views and providing rubrics for use in grading student case analyses.

The case describes the policies followed by the Government of India to attract private investments for Oil & Gas exploration. This case is based around observations made by the Comptroller and Auditor General of India on some of the petroleum sharing contracts and the remedial measures suggested by a committee appointed by the Government. The case describes how such contracts are structured elsewhere and raises issue about how such contracts can be structured and managed by the state.

The Performance Management at IRD Corporation case series is designed to be an in-depth study of performance appraisal in the R&D context. The case series can be used as a platform for discussing the rationale of performance appraisal system, system design and implementation, the differences between R&D and other work contexts (manufacturing, services, etc.), and the challenges involved in R&D management. This case revolves around the Chairman of IRD Corp and his dilemmas, providing an insight to the participants into the challenges of performance management and also R&D management. The series highlights the complex dilemmas associated with managing performance and the necessity of having a new performance evaluation system.

The reading and discussion on case will enable participants to appreciate importance of reward management in performance management system for both employee and organizational good; to develop insight on the effect of perceived discrimination on the motivation of employees; to internalize the effect of perceived unjust, subjective, non-communicative, non-transparent policies on the behavior and productivity of employees and overall organizational culture and climate; and to comprehend the importance of HR and OB issues with respect to performance management system for the benefit of employee morale, motivation and organizational culture.

The effectiveness of an employee is the key factor for the employer. All the profit that the company or the organization makes depends on the employees’ productiveness. The case needs to be understood in the overall context of performance management system (Ferreiraa and Otley, 2009) with focus on elements of appraisal and compensation via rewards and recognition as per objective standards. Performance management systems (PMSs) is a more general descriptor if the intention is to capture a holistic picture of the management and control of organizational performance. Performance management policies and practices refer to the processes of setting, communicating and monitoring performance targets and rewarding results with the aim of enhancing organizational effectiveness (Fee, McGrath-Champ and Yang, 2011). PMS includes both the formal mechanisms, processes, systems and networks used by organizations, and also the more subtle, yet important, informal controls that are used (Chenhall, 2003; Malmi and Brown, 2008). Otley (1999) proposed a framework which highlights five central issues which need to be considered as part of the process of developing a coherent structure for performance management systems. The five areas addressed by this framework include identification of the key organizational objectives and the processes and methods involved in assessing the level of achievement under each of these objectives, formulating and implementing strategies and plans, as well as the performance measurement and evaluation processes, process of setting performance targets and the levels at which such targets are set, rewards systems used by organizations and the implications of achieving or failing to achieve performance targets and types of information flows required to provide adequate monitoring of performance. While the case touches upon all the aspects of the PMS framework, it revolves round the reward episode and elaborates on the way it affects all stakeholders, those who got the benefit, those who felt discriminated and those were mere observers to the episode. Objective performance appraisals are needed to ensure that every employee produces the best performance and that the work performed is rewarded with reasonable increases in pay scales or special additional allowances or incentives. This system carries crucial importance as it helps managers to decide which rewards should be handed out, by what amount and to whom. Additionally, performance appraisals may increase an employee’s commitment and satisfaction (Wiese and Buckley, 1998) The case readers need to notice that when organizations fail to follow objective appraisal or reward standards, the same rewards become a cause of contention. The reward which was handed over to the employees in this case was in addition to the annual appraisal. Though the role of rewards has been well-recognized in motivating the employees to continue performing at high level and encourage others to strive for better performance, what needs to be recognized that rewards’ per say does not serve purpose. They need to be dealt within the context of performance management system. Using rewards to favor or discriminate a few employees by using subjective standards backfires and does no good as the person who is favored cannot take pride in it and is not motivated to perform better or equally well as he/she also knows that the work has no relation to the reward, it is personal favor, on the other hand, the one who is discriminated feel discouraged and demotivated to perform. Rewards have the potential to both help and harm the organization if dealt in a callous and careless manner. Use of rewards to favor or discriminate certain people due to subjective preference can be suicidal for the organization and irreparably damage the trust of the employees in the management. It has been well stated that fairness and objectivity are the core principles using an assessment of the nature and size of the job each is employed to carry out (Torrington et al., 2005). If any organization decides to include rewards as a motivating mechanism, it needs to cull out unambiguous and transparent criteria for rewarding. If employees perceive procedural or distributive injustice from the management, it is not only detrimental for the employee’ relations and teamwork, it also tarnishes the reputation of the organization and jeopardizes the culture of the organization. Reward management needs to be closely related to performance appraisals, job evaluations and overall performance management systems. The current case elaborates on one such instance where unjustified inequity in reward system not only disturbed the employees concerned but it had bred a negative image of the organization among other employees too, organizational citizenship was replaced with contempt and feeling of apathy.

Post graduate students and working professionals can benefit from this study.

Teaching Notes are available for educators only. Please contact your library to gain login details or email support@emeraldinsight.com to request teaching notes.

Human resource management.